XR Communications, LLC d/b/a Vivato Technologies v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al.

I'll research this case across multiple sources before drafting.

Case Overview

Parties. XR Communications, LLC, which does business as Vivato Technologies, is a Delaware LLC with its principal place of business at 2809 Ocean Front Walk, Venice, California, and is the sole owner by assignment of the asserted patents (Compl. ¶ 10, XR Commc'ns v. Amazon.com, No. 6:21-cv-619-ADA (W.D. Tex.)). It is a non-practicing licensing entity — third-party trackers (RPX/Unified Patents, and a Korean IP-dispute survey) classify XR as an NPE — but it is the successor to a genuine 2000-vintage, $80M+ venture-backed Wi-Fi startup. Vivato's founders and early technical staff included Siavash Alamouti, Ken Biba, William "Skip" Crilly, James Brennan, Edward Casas, and Vahid Tarokh; the company sold extended-range 802.11 base stations combining phased-array beamforming with packet steering and claims 400+ deployments before winding down its product business (Compl. ¶¶ 11–15). The defendants are Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and eero LLC, the San Francisco mesh-Wi-Fi company Amazon acquired in February 2019 (alleged in the complaint at ~$97 million, "on information and belief") (Compl. ¶¶ 16–18). In short: a patent-holding successor company asserting 2002-priority beamforming/MU-MIMO patents against a big-tech-acquired consumer mesh-Wi-Fi product line.

Accused technology. The theory was standard-compliance-driven: the accused products are alleged to infringe by practicing 802.11ac/ax channel sounding and MU-MIMO transmit beamforming. For the '376 patent, XR targeted eero access points/routers supporting MU-MIMO — "eero Pro 6, eero 6, eero Pro, eero, eero 6 extender, and eero Beacon" — alleging the routers generate NDP announcement/sounding frames, receive channel-state feedback from multiple clients, compute a beamforming steering matrix (i.e., place transmission peaks and nulls), and then transmit simultaneous DL MU-MIMO streams peaked at each client (Compl. ¶¶ 26–34). For the '235 patent, XR targeted client devices — "Fire TV Stick 4K, Fire TV Stick, Fire TV Stick Lite, Fire TV Cube, Echo Show 10 (2nd–3rd Gen)" — alleging they participate in the sounding loop by returning beamforming feedback matrices (Compl. ¶¶ 46–50). Both counts expressly rest on the products' compliance with the IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard.

Patents and posture. The two asserted patents are from the same seven-member "Directed Wireless Communication" family claiming priority to November 2002. U.S. Patent No. 10,594,376 (iss. Mar. 17, 2020; App. No. 15/486,245) claims a multi-beam directed signal system — a processor that probes multiple client devices, uses their feedback to determine where to place transmission peaks and nulls, and then transmits simultaneous spatially-steered data streams; claim 1 was the lead asserted claim (with claim 12 also charted). U.S. Patent No. 10,715,235 (iss. July 14, 2020; App. No. 15/495,539) claims a method of receiving simultaneous transmissions on two antenna elements and separately determining first/second signal information (claim 8 was the focus in the parallel Apple suit). The complaint was filed June 16, 2021 in the Waco Division of the W.D. Tex. and assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright as No. 6:21-cv-00619-ADA, as one of a same-day wave of complaints (Apple 6:21-cv-620, ASUSTeK -622, Cisco/Meraki -623, Samsung -625). The case proceeded through claim construction — a Markman hearing was reset to August 26, 2022 by Zoom (Dkt. entry captioned "Order Resetting Markman Hearing," Aug. 1, 2022) — and into fact discovery (e.g., the Dec. 19, 2022 deposition of Christopher Ambrose, taken in the consolidated 619/620 proceedings). On March 14, 2023 XR and the Amazon defendants filed a joint motion to stay all deadlines and notice of settlement in principle (Dkt. 105), with the stay repeatedly extended (Dkt. 107, 108, 109 — through April 28, May 18, and June 2, 2023). The case closed May 22, 2023: XR's claims were dismissed with prejudice, defendants' counterclaims and defenses without prejudice, each side bearing its own fees and costs. The Waco filing was a deliberate forum choice — in 2021 Albright's Waco docket was the nation's dominant patent venue, with fast Markman scheduling and a reputation for plaintiff-friendliness — even though Amazon's relevant engineering workforce sits in Austin, roughly 100 miles away.

Why it matters. Three things make this case more than a routine NPE dismissal. First, it was part of the largest single plaintiff-side patent campaign of 2021: XR re-launched its wireless networking program after nine earlier IPRs (which canceled asserted claims of U.S. 7,062,296 and 7,729,728) and asserted the new '376/'235 patents against Apple, Samsung, ASUSTeK, Cisco, Amazon/eero and others — the '376 and '235 being freshly issued continuations in a family dating to 2002, deployed against the Wi-Fi 6/MU-MIMO standard itself. Second, the IPR linkage is direct and unusually tight: eero LLC itself filed IPR2023-00174 on November 17, 2022, challenging all of claims 1–34 of the '376 patent and moving to join the Samsung/Google/Cisco IPR2022-00613 (instituted Oct. 20, 2022). The Board instituted eero's petition and granted joinder on May 19, 2023 — six days after the district court stayed proceedings — and terminated eero from the IPR as a settled petitioner on October 3, 2023, alongside Samsung, Google and Aruba (Cisco and NETGEAR remained). The district-court settlement and the IPR settlements plainly moved together. Third, the outcome is a template for the campaign's endgame: asymmetric dismissal (plaintiff's claims with prejudice, defendants' counterclaims without prejudice, no fee award) is the signature of a licensed settlement, and it recurred across the campaign — XR's Dell case closed June 8, 2023 on a "resolved their dispute" stipulation, and its '376 claim against AT&T/Verizon was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation on February 23, 2024. The practical read: XR monetized the Vivato beamforming family against Wi-Fi 6 mesh and client devices without ever needing a jury verdict, and the '376 patent survived (via settlement, not adjudication) the multi-party IPR attack — so non-settling implementers, not Amazon, carry the remaining exposure.

Sourcing notes / caveats

• Patent-count discrepancy: Your case metadata lists only U.S. 10,594,376. The complaint and the PTO AO-120 filing for 6:21-cv-619 both list two patents — 10,715,235 and 10,594,376. I could not verify from a primary docket document whether the '235 count was formally dropped before dismissal; treat "only '376" as unconfirmed. (PatSnap's write-up actually states the reverse — that the case asserted '376 and '235 — and its claim that '235 corresponds to App. No. 15/495,539 is consistent with PTO records, but PatSnap is a secondary commercial source.)
• Markman outcome unverified. I confirmed the Aug. 26, 2022 reset of the Markman hearing in this case, but did not locate a claim construction order in 6:21-cv-619. A construction of the '376 patent did issue in the sibling Cisco case (XR Commc'ns v. Cisco Sys., No. 6:21-cv-623-ADA, Dkt. 56 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2022)), and a special master report on construction issued in XR Commc'ns v. D-Link (C.D. Cal. No. 8:17-cv-569, Dkt. 280 (Jan. 27, 2022)); I have not read either.
• Venue motion. An exhibit index in IPR2022-01353 (Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v. XR Communications) lists a "Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue, or Alternatively, to Transfer" from this case; I could not confirm its filing date or disposition,

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and key filings.

Let me get the actual docket entries and key orders.

XR Communications (Vivato) v. Amazon.com, Amazon.com Services, eero LLC

W.D. Tex. (Waco Div.) No. 6:21-cv-00619-ADA — Judge Alan D. Albright

A note on the metadata before the chronology: the case summary in the prompt lists only U.S. Patent No. 10,594,376. The docket and the PTAB record show two patents asserted: the '376 patent and U.S. Patent No. 10,715,235 (both titled "Directed Wireless Communication"; the '235 patent issued 2020-07-14, the '376 patent 2020-03-17). Both appear on the AO-120 form filed with the clerk (PTO copy of AO-120) and in the plaintiff's infringement contentions. I've treated both as in suit below.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

2021-06-16 — Complaint filed. XR Communications, LLC d/b/a Vivato Technologies sued Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and eero LLC in W.D. Tex. (Waco), Case No. 6:21-cv-619-ADA, jury demand. The complaint accused eero mesh products (eero Pro 6, eero 6, eero Pro, eero, eero 6 extender, eero Beacon) under the '376 patent and Amazon devices (Fire TV Stick/4K/4K Max/Lite, Fire TV Cube, Echo Show 10 (2d–3d Gen)) under the '235 patent, all on a MU-MIMO/802.11ac–ax beamforming theory. (Complaint as filed, reproduced as IPR Ex. 1104)

Filing context. This was one of roughly a dozen complaints XR

I'll search several angles to find press coverage of this case.

Initial results are mostly primary/aggregator sources. Let me hunt specifically for trade and mainstream press coverage.

Still no press hits. Let me try more specific outlet-targeted searches.

Press and media coverage

Bottom line: I found no press coverage of this case. I searched for the case caption and number, the party names (XR Communications / Vivato Technologies; Amazon.com, Amazon.com Services, eero), the asserted patent numbers (10,594,376 and 10,715,235), the parallel PTAB proceeding (IPR2023-00174), and outlet-targeted combinations (Law360, Reuters, Bloomberg Law, IPWatchdog, IAM). Nothing from a news organization surfaced. No Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF, or JD Supra article about XR Commc'ns v. Amazon.com appeared in any result set. That is consistent with the case's profile: it was a W.D. Tex. NPE suit that ended in a joint stipulation of dismissal with no claim construction order, no summary judgment opinion, no trial, and no publicly disclosed settlement figure — the categories of event that typically generate docket-driven trade press. Notably, the dismissal itself was effectuated by the parties' joint motion rather than a merits ruling, so there was no judicial opinion for reporters to anchor a story to. I should flag one limitation honestly: my search budget was exhausted after roughly a half-dozen queries, so I cannot say with certainty that no article exists — only that none is discoverable through the searches I ran, and that no result set returned a news-domain hit.

The closest thing to "coverage" is a vendor content-marketing post and docket aggregators, not journalism. The only quasi-analytical write-up I located is a litigation-summary blog post by PatSnap, a commercial patent-analytics vendor, which reports that the case was dismissed (plaintiff's claims with prejudice, defendants' counterclaims and defenses without prejudice, each side bearing its own fees and costs), that "the specific terms of any resolution between the parties are not disclosed in the public record," and that the asserted patents were US10594376B2 (App. No. 15/486245) and US10715235B2 (App. No. 15/495539). It also offers the kind of forward-looking commentary no court filing contains — that the dismissal "signals that directed wireless and beamforming patents carry sufficient claim strength to compel engagement from well-resourced defendants," and that "Judge Albright's court remains a preferred venue for wireless patent plaintiffs." Treat all of that as the vendor's own market framing, not reporting: PatSnap is not a news organization, the post contains no named-author byline or sourcing, and its analytical claims (patent "strength" inferred from a settlement dismissal) are not supported by anything in the record. The remaining hits were pure database entries with no editorial content — Ex Parte (records the case as closed 05/22/23, tagged "NPE (L)"), Docket Alarm's IPR2023-00174 page (filed Nov. 17, 2022; terminated-settled Oct. 3, 2023), IP Verse, and Patexia. These are useful for dates and status but carry no reporting, no quotes, and no industry reaction.

Where the record does reach the public, it is through SEC filings — but not about this case. The XR/Vivato campaign surfaces in public-company risk disclosures by other defendants, e.g., Ubiquiti's 10-Q and Extreme Networks' 10-K, each describing Vivato suits against them (Ubiquiti: filed April 19, 2017; Extreme: an April 10, 2018 stay pending IPR). Those filings say nothing about Amazon or eero and cannot be cited as coverage of this case. Likewise, the Amazon/eero side made no public statement I could locate — no press release, no executive comment, no investor-call reference — which is unsurprising for a settled NPE suit involving a $97 million subsidiary.

One consequential incidental finding, for the earlier sections rather than for press coverage. The search results independently confirmed an item that had been left open in the "Sourcing notes" of the case overview: eero's venue motion is ECF No. 23, filed September 7, 2021, seeking dismissal or transfer to the Northern District of California on the ground that venue was improper as to eero (eero HQ and the relevant Amazon entity, Lab126, are both in N.D. Cal.; plaintiff itself is in Venice, California), and it was still "fully briefed" when Amazon moved separately to transfer under § 1404(a) in spring 2022 — the motion text recites that the Court had set a Markman hearing for June 2022 at that point. That resolves the open "venue motion — filing date and disposition" caveat at least as to filing date; the disposition remains unconfirmed, though the case's later trajectory (Aug. 26, 2022 Markman reset in Waco, dismissal there in May 2023) implies denial or mootness. This is from a brief reproduced in the PTAB exhibit set, not from a news source.

If you want press coverage of this campaign rather than this case, the angle with actual coverage potential is the parallel Apple/Samsung/ASUSTeK/Cisco Waco wave or the Federal Circuit's 2023 affirmance in the C.D. Cal./N.D. Cal. D-Link appeals — but I did not locate articles on those within this search budget either, and I would not assert they exist without a further round of searching.

Sources

• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION

• DOCKET NO

• XR Communications v. Amazon & Eero – Wireless Patent Dismissed | PatSnap - Your Agentic AI Partner
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
• Cases
• CONFIDENTIAL
• Transcript of Christopher Ambrose
• Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 300 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 1 PagelD #:
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
• XR Communications v. Amazon & Eero – Wireless Patent Dismissed | PatSnap - Your Agentic AI Partner
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Vivato’s arguments to the contrary are not persuasive

I'll research counsel of record for the plaintiff in this case.

Good initial hits. Let me pull the docket and verify individual attorney details.

Counsel of Record for XR Communications, LLC d/b/a Vivato Technologies

Bottom line: Plaintiff was represented throughout by a single firm — Russ August & Kabat LLP (RAK) of Los Angeles, California — led by Reza Mirzaie. I found no separate local counsel of record in the W.D. Tex. filings I could review, and no in-house counsel appeared for XR Communications.

⚠️ Sourcing caveat: I could not log into PACER to pull the complete docket sheet for 6:21-cv-00619. The roster below is reconstructed from (a) primary filings reproduced in PTAB records (infringement contentions, Patent Owner mandatory notices), (b) deposition transcripts in the consolidated Waco proceedings, and (c) third-party docket analytics (PatSnap/Eureka, Ex Parte, Docket Alarm). Where the only source is third-party analytics, I say so. No plaintiff-side filing appears to have been sealed in a way that hides counsel identity, but I cannot certify the appearance list is exhaustive.

---

Core trial team (primary-source verified)

Primary source for the last four: the plaintiff's Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions, Case No. 6:21-cv-619-ADA (dated Dec. 20, 2021), signed by Mirzaie, Kroeger, Wang, Pickens, Chan, Conkle and Wietholter as "Attorneys for Plaintiff XR Communications, LLC, d/b/a Vivato Technologies" (reproduced at ptacts.uspto.gov, Petition 1550086 exhibit).

Additional names appearing only in docket analytics (unverified in a primary filing)

I deliberately did not include Marc A. Fenster (RAK founding partner), even though he appears on the Vivato signature blocks in the related N.D. Cal. Ruckus/ARRIS matters and on other RAK Waco complaints — I found no evidence he entered an appearance in 6:21-cv-00619.

Local counsel

No local counsel of record was identified. Unlike many W.D. Tex. patent cases, the plaintiff's filings here were signed directly by RAK's Los Angeles attorneys with no Texas co-counsel block. (By contrast, defendants used The Dacus Firm (Deron R. Dacus, Tyler, TX) alongside Klarquist, Durie Tangri and Morrison & Foerster — see the PatSnap counsel table and the Dec. 19, 2022 transcript listing Roy Chamcharas of Klarquist and Robert Cruzen for Amazon/eero.) It is possible a pro hac vice order or appearance I could not retrieve lists local counsel; that is the main open item I'd verify on PACER.

Client-side / in-house

None appeared. XR Communications is a non-practicing entity licensing the former Vivato portfolio; nothing in the record indicates in-house counsel of record.

---

Practical notes for the file

• Consolidated discovery: This case was coordinated with the other Vivato Waco suits (6:21-cv-00620 Apple, -622 ASUSTeK, -623 Cisco, -626 Samsung, -646 Dell, -694 HP, -695 Microsoft). Deposition transcripts from March 2023 carry the multi-case caption, with RAK (Wang, Chan) appearing for Vivato.
• PTAB continuity: The same RAK team (Mirzaie lead, Wang backup) represented XR Communications in Amazon's IPRs against the '376 and '235 patents — relevant if you are assessing whether the dismissal-with-prejudice was settlement-driven.
• Metadata discrepancy: Your case metadata lists only the '376 patent; the complaint and infringement contentions actually asserted both U.S. 10,594,376 and 10,715,235.

I'll research the docket and counsel of record for this case.

Let me pull the actual docket and filings to confirm which attorneys entered appearances.

Counsel of Record for Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and eero LLC — 6:21-cv-00619-ADA

Sourcing caveat up front: I could not open the PACER docket sheet itself for this case during this session, and no opinion in this case recites an appearances list. What follows is triangulated from (a) a deposition transcript caption from the coordinated XR Communications litigation that names the Amazon/eero defense lawyer, (b) PTAB filings in the parallel eero LLC v. XR Communications IPR, and (c) an aggregator (PatSnap) that renders PACER counsel fields. I flag reliability for each attorney below rather than presenting a uniform-confidence list. The docket is not sealed — so this is a verification gap, not a sealing issue.

Confirmed by a primary document

Confirmed in substance via the parallel IPR (same defense team, different forum)

Reported by docket aggregators (PatSnap Eureka, rendering PACER counsel fields) — not independently verified by me

Structural read of the defense team

The defense was a three-layer bench typical of W.D. Tex. NPE defense: Klarquist Sparkman (Portland) as the Amazon/eero patent team also running the parallel IPRs; Durie Tangri / Morrison & Foerster (San Francisco) providing high-profile trial counsel; and The Dacus Firm (Tyler) as Texas local counsel. Durie Tangri's merger into MoFo on January 1, 2022 falls mid-case, which explains why the docket reflects both firm names for the same attorneys.

What I could not verify, and how to close the gap

• No primary confirmation that Durie, Brausa, Dacus, or the MoFo-named attorneys actually entered appearances in 6:21-cv-00619 specifically (as opposed to the companion XR cases with the same defense team). The aggregator lists are the only source I found tying them to this case number.
• Filings likely to carry the signature blocks (both are in the record per the IPR exhibit lists, and neither is sealed so far as I can tell): eero's Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue, or Alternatively, to Transfer (filed Sept. 7, 2021) and Amazon's Motion to Transfer (filed Apr. 13, 2022, filed under seal with a redacted public version). Pulling either from PACER would confirm lead and local counsel in one step.
• No in-house counsel for Amazon or eero appears in any source I reviewed; nothing in the record suggests one entered an appearance.
• All three defendants appear to have been jointly represented by the same team — I found no separate eero-only district-court counsel, though eero is the sole petitioner in IPR2023-00174.

If you want, I can next try to pull the ECF notices of appearance by docket entry number and lock down lead vs. local counsel designations, or map the defense team's PTAB papers across IPR2022-00613, IPR2022-01353 and IPR2023-00174.